Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. In exchange, the description usefully discloses the shape of the result (city, photo, video count, fee) in the absence of an output schema, though it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or empty results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but it is a fragmented noun list rather than a front-loaded action statement, and the trailing phrase 'как узнать гонорар' is ambiguous about whether it is a field or an instruction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the field enumeration partially compensates for the missing return contract. Still, the core statement of what the tool returns as a whole is left implicit, so it is only minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description carries no extra burden. The description adds no parameter detail, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates the contents of an artist card (description, city, photo, video count, fee info) but never states the action — that it retrieves a single artist's profile. An agent can infer 'get one artist' from the name and title, but the sentence reads as a content list rather than a purpose statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of the obvious alternative (search_artists to obtain the ID). The only routing hint lives in the schema parameter description ('ID из результатов поиска'), not in the tool description itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.